Advocates make case for CT zoo elephants’ ‘personhood’

Protesters outside the Connecticut Appellate Court in Hartford where the Nonhuman Rights Project argued to be allowed to have their lawsuit heard by a lower court.

Protesters outside the Connecticut Appellate Court in Hartford where the Nonhuman Rights Project argued to be allowed to have their lawsuit heard by a lower court.

Photo: Leslie Hutchison / Hearst Connecticut Media

Photo: Leslie Hutchison / Hearst Connecticut Media

Image
1of/14

Caption

Close

Image 1 of 14

Protesters outside the Connecticut Appellate Court in Hartford where the Nonhuman Rights Project argued to be allowed to have their lawsuit heard by a lower court.

Protesters outside the Connecticut Appellate Court in Hartford where the Nonhuman Rights Project argued to be allowed to have their lawsuit heard by a lower court.

Photo: Leslie Hutchison / Hearst Connecticut Media

Advocates make case for CT zoo elephants’ ‘personhood’

1 / 14

Back to Gallery

HARTFORD — Beulah, Karen and Minnie, elephants kept at the Commerford Zoo in Goshen, were compared in court Monday to an 8-year-old girl who was detained illegally in a mental health facility.

Attorney Steven Wise, who founded the Nonhuman Rights Project, told Appellate Court Judge Douglas Lavine during oral arguments that the organization “has a right to argue for the elephants,” considered as people by the rights project.

The Nonhuman Rights Group alleges the elephants are being detained illegally in “deplorable” conditions at the Goshen-based Comerford Zoo and wants them moved to a natural habitat sanctuary.

“What are the characterizations that make an elephant to be deemed a person?” Lavine asked. Wise answered that “we were all humans 200 years ago. Women and children were not considered persons,” he said

“The social or political conditions then that rendered someone ‘less than’ a person was unjust,” Lavine stated. “You’re asking the court to make a radicalized change in the law.”

The rights project then filed a nearly identical lawsuit in June 2018 in Tolland County. Wise said at the time that the decision to file the suit in Rockville Superior Court was made because the group believes the judges in that district were “more versed in the legal action” that he seeks.

The plaintiff’s request in Tolland County was dismissed in February.

The position White argued before the Appellate Court sought a ruling from the judges which would order a state Superior Court to give the “group an opportunity to make its arguments in the lower court,” a statement from the group said.

“The court has to make a determination on the elephants,” Wise said to the appellate court, that would “allow the project to exercise the elephant’s right to autonomy.”

Lavine replied that if the court “allowed autonomy, (the elephants) would still be illegally contained,” but at the Performing Animal Welfare Society Sanctuary in California, where the group plans to relocate the elephants if it wins the lawsuit.

Appellate Court Judge Nina Elgo then asked “what about dogs? Should or shouldn’t they be crated? What’s to prevent a person to think if it’s wrong” to crate a dog, “to come before the court” for a ruling that crating is illegal containment.

“What if you took a pet and said it should be free and you let it go in the woods. It’s related to the wolf so that’s his environment,” Appellate Court Judge Christine Keller said.

The three elephants cited in the lawsuit have lived in Goshen since they were four years old, co-owner Darlene Commerford said previously. “Beulah is now 50 and retired.”

She and her husband, Tim, run the business that’s been in the family for three generations, Darlene Commerford said in an earlier interview. “We’re so tired of fighting this,” she added.

The family could not be reached Monday for comment.

“In this time and place, isn’t it more productive to go to the legislature and argue that the law doesn’t include animals?” Lavine asked.

“Legislatures handle public policy that you want to have addressed far better than courts,” Elgo added.

“If we go with a criminal statute, and a tiger mauls a person, it can’t stand trial in court because it’s not a person,” Keller noted

Elgo said: “We don’t have the power to look at all these implications.”

After the hearing, Wise spoke on the courthouse steps to a group of about 20 supporters. “It’s good to know there are a lot of people here.”

“The judge did not disparage anything,”’ Wise continued. “We’re fighting for every single inch. We want to be in front of the courts again and again,” he added.

David Zabel, partner at Cohen & Wolf, who appeared as the local counsel for the rights group, said, “Steven did an excellent job with the oral argument. The judges asked very thoughtful questions.”

The group has vowed to take its case to the state Supreme Court, if needed, Wise has said. The local counsel said he couldn’t guess how long it would take to receive a ruling from the court on their request.